Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please post the usual document we require by reading this and updating your thread accordingly:-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

We do need to see your reps and their response.

The signage at either end of Imperial Road seems to be ineffective at conveying where the signage begins -

I put an overlay of the TRO restrictions over the GPS tracking trail of the vehicle -


Forget about the planning aspect of the HGV. A council must make all motorists using the road aware of the effect of the order, and most motorists are not planning every aspect of their route. Neither end identifies where the restriction actually starts on Imperial Road. The east end they even have just the 'no motor vehicles' diagram on a map-type advance direction sign. But the whole road isn't restricted. It should have a "360 yds" plate under it.

They are indeed advance warning signs.

But they imply the entire road is restricted. Which it isn't. A general motorist could not possibly know where the restriction actually starts without driving down either end of the road to find out, as there are no distance plates at either end. Once committed on the west end of Imperial Road there is no alternative route. In this instance the vehicle was driving to a construction site just on the other side of the restriction. And so should have gone down the east end of the road to avoid it. However, that end also has prohibition signs indicating the restriction applies to the whole road (especially the map-type advance direction sign before the roundabout). Therefore, the signs surely do not effectively convey the effect of the Order which only restricts from the Emden Street junction to the Fulmead Street junction on Imperial Road.

But also, what about the collateral challenge for the Council taking 131 days to respond to the appeal? I can't find any specific cases where the 90 day reasonable response time was actually applied at a London Tribunal, are you aware of any?

I will find the relevant case(s) re unconscionable delay



BUT not all agree!



571 ff: hence my drive for a change in the law. This is ridiculous. Adjudicators should apply 56 days as per parking PCNs.

Still WHO CARES as 95% people just pay up? Hence the failure of my petition last year to consolidate the London Local Authorities Act 1996  (as amended)  with the The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003  which would have created a MUST that all authorities attend to answer questions re camera evidence.

Let's go for a Higher Tribunal too.

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/the-need-for-a-higher-tribunal-9546/

Have you registered your appeal yet?

I'm with colleagues on the unreasonable delay.
The relevant case we always used 'back in the day' was Davies vs Kensington.

Your complaint about advance warning signs is liable to backfire imho.
The whole point of the scheme is to prevent traffic using certain roads; in this case using a short length of restricted road, rendering the whole road or area restricted in effect, as you say.

Have you registered your appeal yet?

I'm with colleagues on the unreasonable delay.
The relevant case we always used 'back in the day' was Davies vs Kensington.

Your complaint about advance warning signs is liable to backfire imho.
The whole point of the scheme is to prevent traffic using certain roads; in this case using a short length of restricted road, rendering the whole road or area restricted in effect, as you say.

No, I haven't appealed yet but the unreasonable delay will be the main point in the appeal.

I saw Davies vs Kensington was referenced in each of the decisions so I had read it a few days ago. In this instance what ground for appeal would be selected?

And the vehicle was delivering to a construction site (Kings Road Park) on the road though, it just happened to be on the other side of this short restricted section of road. But if the goal is to prevent vehicles using certain roads would it not make more sense to have distance plates so a driver doesn't have to drive right upto it to know here it actually starts? Which causes the vehicles the Council don't want using the roads leading upto the restriction, to use them not just once, but twice. The signs say no through road, but the vehicle wasn't attempting to use Imperial Road as a through road.

So, the scheme actually only fulfills it's purpose if people have pre planned their route and know before hand where exactly the restriction is on this road and which end to enter from.

Once the vehicle is at the restriction signs what can it realistically do? It  could maybe turn into Emden Street and reverse out to turn around but I don't think it could do that without crossing into the restricted zone and setting off the cameras anyway, or otheriwse crossing into the bus lane, it's 16.5m long.

The driver has misunderstood directions given, but frankly should have been sent a map by their planner of the exact route to take here.

Had the driver gone the correct way though they are seeing advance signage that to me indicates that they can't go the correct way. Which is what doesn't seem right to me.

I'm not trying to be argumentative btw, just wanting to better understand why it could backfire I guess

I've not read your case details - if there's no excuse for going well beyond 3 months you should win this.

Another case.

---------

Case reference 2250537855
Appellant Nicholas Dunham
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM MM22VOP

PCN Details
PCN BT24867530
Contravention date 15 Mar 2025
Contravention time 10:46:00
Contravention location Salusbury Rd / Hartland Rd
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction

Referral date -

Decision Date 09 Mar 2026
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant has attended for his appeal by video link, the Authority was not in attendance.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Salusbury Road / Hartland Road on 15 March 2025 at 10:46.
The Appellant denies the contravention advancing a number of points, which I considered.
I find that the principal reason advanced by the Appellant, in relation to the time delay from the Appellant's submission of their representations and the time taken to respond, to be well founded.
There is no statutory time limit in relation to a Notice of Rejection in relation to moving traffic case.
However, an Authority is required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. The key case of Paul Richard Davis - v - The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (case number 1970182813) where this matter was dealt with comprehensively by the Adjudicator Mr G Hickinbottom (as he then was), is good case law for the requirement of an Authority to act with due diligence.
The PCN in this case was in relation to a contravention on 15 March 2025. The PCN was issued on 20 March 2025 and representations were received from the Appellant on the 31 March 2025. The Notice of Rejection is dated 17 September 2025. This is well in excess of 5 months.
I find that the time taken to deal with this case is not justified and is excessive. Previous cases have found that delays in excess of 3 months without a sufficient explanation to be unacceptable.
Whilst I have considered the explanation advanced by the Authority, I do not find that it is sufficient to justify the long delay in this particular case, which is not far off 6 months.
Accordingly, I find, as a fact, that the Authority has failed to act with due diligence and in a timely manner in this case.
The appeal is allowed.